User talk:Oscardog/Areas
Lirelles Sub Category Sugestion This is just here so i dont have to jump between more than one page each time i need to revise something from the sub categories. Here are some suggestions for potential sections. See Aerdala for inspiration. *map *introduction *access (entrances/zaaps/imp carriers/other (boats...)) *special places **dungeons **profession spots (workshops, gathering spots...) **quests starting points **hidden places (hidden mines, secret routes...) *monsters *npcs --Lirielle 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://dofus.wikia.com/wiki/Dofus:Community_Portal/Style_Guide/Areas" Thanks, --Kiriath 07:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Jellith Dimension The jelly dimension is not part of amakna, it could be said its not even on "the world of twelve" (but this is speculation) but yeah the jelly dimension it is his own area also they have a sub-area--Cizagna (Talk) 01:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC) :Well, you're right of course, but is does make sense to keep it with th Jelly Peninsula, since Jellith Dimension uses the same maps. Unless we group all dungeons in a separate category, thus also removing eg. Gobball Dungeon from Tainela, etc. --Lirielle 01:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC) :Well, you're right also but jelly dimension can be access any where, while gobball dungeon can be access only in Tainela, also jelly dimension has its own sub category --Cizagna (Talk) 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Layout I think a hierarchical layout (using headers and subheaders so as to generate a Table of Contents) would be much better than a table. --Lirielle 01:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC) :in my personal believe i dislike that between line as its first segmented and uses the same color as the rest of the table. --Cizagna (Talk) 21:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Would it be possible to... Would it be possible to create a separate Stubs page, but it only contains the areas pages. This way i could place a small template at the top with JUST the area stubs. This means people can see what pages need more info and it may encourage people to add information to the pages. Of course i would set all the pages up, would just need a lil helping hand (and of course, you letting me know its possible) Thanks, --Kiriath 10:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC) :If you are really desperate then it can be sort of done, thought i don't recommend it that much unless you are plaining to do a portal page sort of thing--Cizagna (Talk) 04:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |- | category=Stub category=Location count=13 order=random allowcachedresults=true |- | |} --Cizagna (Talk) 04:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Portal page? I am afraid my knowledge is quite good of the wiki formatting but i have no idea what a portal page is or what it does. Could you help? --Kiriath 10:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Table Im trying to make it easier to tell the difference between each "category" (eg - Bonta/Astrub/Amakna etc.). I know the colours are HORRIBLE and its still not very clear. Before applying the "toccolours" there was a small think line between each "category" but since applying the "toccolours" it has dissappeared. Would it be possible to make the lines re-appear? Or just leave the table white so there are just lines. Or maybe you have another suggestion? I would be glad of all your comments on the matter. Thanks, --Kiriath 09:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) :agree they are horrible colors. The lines disappearing is part of the tocolors format in any case an option you can do to this is instead of |- !style="background:#CC9900;"| Amakna :use this this will color the full row instead of just the cell (dont forget to remove the ending pipe line of the style) |-style="background:#CC9900;" ! Amakna :--Cizagna (Talk) 15:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC) :It appears that my "main area" and "locations" (that are headers of the table) have dissappeared since adding the code! (i'll edit the colour in a minute, could you make the headers "re-appear"? :Also the Amakna things have dissappeared. you mentioned removing the pipeline, i have no idea what that is... so could you fix and explain what a pipeline is? :Thanks, :--Kiriath 15:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC) You removed the pipeline ("|") and the exclamation mark ("!" this is like a pipeline but for stating what are headers cells) thats why it disappear, every thing you put |- must be styling other way it will not be display --Cizagna (Talk) 16:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Table, last thing! It wont colour the "main areas" and "locations" at the top of the table. I would like it the same colour as the rest of the table (i think the colour works well with the background, and also the background colour kinda of works well to separate the different sections). So could you (hopefully for the last time) fix my colours! Thanks, --Kiriath 16:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Let's go practical What if you edited the Amakna (stub) page to see where we are going? --Lirielle 11:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC) :I havn't made a skeleton page for the "main area" section yet. Only the sub areas( eg - wild canyon/astrub forets )... unless you want me to follow your example that you have set on the page? : --Kiriath 11:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Empty Sections Oh, another point I forgot: I suggest you don't leave "empty" sections. I mean, if there is no dungeon in the considered area, just remove the Dungeon section, don't add "Dungeons : No Dungeons" --Lirielle 22:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC) : I've copied this across from your talk page and I'd just like to second this - there is no point leaving big empty sections on the pages. I would fix them for you but I don't have any net access at home yet so can only check the wiki briefly :( --PresqueVu 15:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC) :: I value your suggestions, so keep them coming but i think that just letting people know there are not dungeons by just taking up 3-4 lines is no harm. I would consider removing the sections like "gatherings spots" if there was nothing there. Thanks, --Kiriath 16:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC) ::It is redundant information - the fact that there is no section for dungeons tells you that there are none. Some of these pages now have half of them taken up with empty sections. There is no need to expand the page size just to state the obvious, if we go that route we will have a ton of artificially inflated pages that tell you nothing valuable. Anyhow, hopefully we will get an opinion from Peet or Cizagna since we already know Lirielle agrees. Cheers, --PresqueVu 09:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC) ::: I can understand what your saying but i just think it would be alot simpler to leave it there. Im sure that 3-4 lines extra isn't going to worry anyone, getting rid of the 3-4lines of information would be a waste of time, and is just being a picky! As for cizagna/peet i think i would value a contribution from both of them, but as cizagna has said may times before "its my project". --Kiriath 10:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC) ::: The easiest option is rarely the best one. A good example of an offender is here. Note that it is not merely a few lines, but three quarters of the page is filled with blank space. There is no need for this and it detracts from what is generally a good layout. --PresqueVu 12:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Well yes agreed it does take up some of the page. But it is my personal belief that for example "Quest starting points" and then "None" is needed. I find it very helpful to know that no quests start in this area. I would though change the fact that "Gathering spots" and "Hidden Spots" could be deleted if there was nothing under that section. But i refuse to remove the "Dungeons" and "Quest starting points" as i believe there helpful. --Kiriath 15:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC) : I agree with PresqueVu, and don't think the empty sections are useful at all. If you are looking for a particular quest or dungeon, you would be using the Quest or Dungeon pages. If you are looking at the page of where you happen to be, then it is nice to see if you could start a quest, but it is unnecessary to be told explicitly that there are no quest starting spots, when the lack of information is just as effective. Just my opinion. //PeetTM 16:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC) :This is a thought one i use both systems, inside the template everything must be said even the absence, but outside the template is all the way around, i just add the relevant info, for example some equipments are obtain by quest, but not all, what would be the use to tell in all the pages obtain quest "none". My concern is history information as i have been playing for a while, so i know history information and i appreciate this type of things to be display for example Amakna Castle (thought Lirielle was the one who remove the info and not Oscardog) that place was a only GM access but it existed and there where images of Wishdragon inside there and there where plots, ideas, on how to try to get in. The area pages cant go to technical, there is no info on how they could go that technical in fact, so i support more the folkloric text, and i still disagree about jellie dimenssion been a subarea of Amakna, makes me wonder where does incarm go? --Cizagna (Talk) 18:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC) I do love the way we can just talk like this. Discussion is the best way forward! Anyway was cizagna for or against the "No dungeon" if there were none, or did he prefer the section deleted? I think incarnam should stay as it is(as a "main location")jelly dimension should also be listed as a "main location" as it is accessable from anywhere in the DOFUS world. --Kiriath 20:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC) : I think he was saying that you need the empty sections in your template page, but they shouldn't be on the actual Area pages. He was also saying that there could be more information about the history of a place, such as when it opened or created. //PeetTM 08:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)